FACTS:-

The Defendant drove a vehicle on a road on an industrial estate. He was charged with contravening various sections of the Road Traffic Act 1972.  On 9^th October 1974 three informations were laid by the Prosecutor against the Defendant alleging breaches of various sections of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The first concerned a charge of driving while disqualified, contrary to section 99; the second, using a motor vehicle when there was not in force a policy of insurance, contrary to section 143 ; and the third, of using a motor vehicle in respect of which no appropriate test certificate had been issued within the preceding 12 months, contrary to section44. 

The case did not look at the alleged offences but whether or not the charges were properly laid in respect of Offences against the Act of 1972.  that is whether or not the offences occurred on a road. 

The definition of ‘road’ was found under section 196 of the 1972 Act which repeated the previous definition in the preceding appropriate Acts. 

 ‘…”road” means any highway and any other road to which the public has access.” 

The justices were of opinion that the estate road was not a road to which the relevant sections applied and dismissed the information’s.

The prosecutor, appealed and the case stated did not make clear whether the

Justices had found facts entitling them to conclude that there was insufficient user of the road by members of the public so that it was not a ‘road’ within section 196(1) of the Act of 1972.

HELD:-

On appeal it was held that the case would be remitted for the justices to clarify their findings on fact and provide sufficient information as to whether they had applied the correct test. 

Kilner Brown J found that the question for the court was whether No. 2 Road, Colwick Estate was a road within the scope of the relevant sections of the RTA 1972.  Kilner Brown J held this was a question of fact but found the case needed to be remitted to the justices to clarify the findings of fact and to give the court, (which at the time of the case the court did not have) sufficient information as to whether or not the justices have applied the right test and whether or not they really found any facts sufficient  to make the case one in which they were entitled to say that there was insufficient user by members of the public and therefore it was not a road within the Act.  Therefore Kilner took the view to remit the case for the reasons above.   

Watkins, J agreed with Kilner

Lord Widgery J agreed with the judgement of Kilner Brown and took the view that in 99 cases out of 100 that direction is that all the justices need to decide whether a road is a ‘road’ for current purposes. 

The case was remitted to the justices with a direction accordingly and the costs reserved.

Related posts:

1. Oxford v Austin [1981]